Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Thanks for the offer, but we've been down that road before. I'm frankly still wondering why lunges and turning the body suddenly becomes axis training and 'internal' strength and when it is Japanese or Chinese natural suddenly people don't know about it except for a select few.

Because turning suddenly isn't axis training, winding your body the way I've seen people do isn't silk reelling either. And you can touch someone and feel the difference. As many here have reported...Hmm.. maybe all.
Since you continually reveal you don't have clue-I think you don't have a chance to do much of anything to someone who does understand the difference. Since you tell us we're nuts, why not put your body where your mouth is and stop the stalking.
We did.

Thanks for the offer, but we've been down that road before. I'm frankly still wondering why lunges and turning the body suddenly becomes axis training and 'internal' strength and when it is Japanese or Chinese natural suddenly people don't know about it except for a select few.

That is exactly what I could help show you

The lunges/turning the body in shintaijuku isn't just lunging/turning the body, that is simply copying the shape without the intent. If you do that exercise correctly, you will find that the body starts to push/pull itself as you "open" and "close". That is to say you aren't mentally telling the legs to push, they just start to move as though it was of their own accord.

for example in shiko (the sumo stomp exercise), when closing the right arm, you start to find the left side of the body turning. If you don't have the right alignment/structure etc, you don't feel any of these sensations and as a result each part of the body starts to move independently of the other instead of as one unit.

When each part moves independently instead of as a whole, the resultant strike/throw etc isn't quite as powerful.

If you want to check out the swordfest 2007 demos in Alexandria this weeked (http://capitalareabudokai.org/swordfest.html demos of eastern and western sword styles, chinese, german, italian, japanese etc), I will be there and if you have 10 minutes to spare I can hopefully answer the above question for you.

Setting aside the issue of the Nepalese/African/Sherpa porters (who probably display some sort of jin/ki skill, I guess), normal muscle is capable of an awful lot all by itself. I would be leery of automatically assuming that fisherman and farmers are using jin/ki.

I worked for a number of years as a bicycle messenger and then loading trucks for UPS. In both jobs, I reached a level of conditioning where my muscles just stopped getting tired. I never considered myself exceptionally "strong", but I could push myself well beyond what any of my non-manual labor friends could.

Loading trucks, I certainly learned how to hold the weight in my core and load up my legs, but I still used a helleva lot of muscle. Maybe I gained a minimal amount of body connection, but I certainly didn't learn the type of body skills I'm learning now. And the guys that worked those jobs for 10, 15, 20 years didn't display the type of body skills my teacher has, either. Their broad shoulders, backs, and thighs suggested they used muscle, too. But they could do that work for 5-8 hours at a stretch, day in and day out.

You don't need big bulky muscle to be really strong. But anyway, that all is the long way of me saying that the body skills I'm learning now are different from what I did doing manual labor.

Probably not. And you may not be the last to make your own loose translations between Chinese and Japanese.....

So what's a better translation for the term?

One of the real problems with a lot of the terms and phrases is that the literal translation (the "better translation") has little to do with it. That's why it's a common statement that only an experienced martial artist can translate the idiomatic meaning and references in many terms. The "best translation" turns out to be the idiomatic translation.... which refers to the windings of a silk worm as it lays out the cocoon. Probably the best translation is still going to be vague and not very explicative: chansi gung would be "winding exercises".

The "best translation" turns out to be the idiomatic translation.... which refers to the windings of a silk worm as it lays out the cocoon. Probably the best translation is still going to be vague and not very explicative: chansi gung would be "winding exercises".

Right, you twister. That's why "CHINESE" sources have been saying "reeling silk" for decades when they were using English. That's why they all describe pulling the silk from the coccoon: they are referring to the worm putting the silk on the coccoon. It makes sense...in Sigmanland.

Chan
to bother; wind around; wrap round; coil; involve; annoy; tangle

Si
Silk, thread, trace

The detailed description of the effort always refers to drawing the silk from the coccoon and onto a "reel."

So yes, "they" do "call it reeling silk" when they're speaking English, and their illustrations prove that they're not talking about the worm, you silk producing fellow.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Right, you twister. That's why "CHINESE" sources have been saying "reeling silk" for decades when they were using English. That's why they all describe pulling the silk from the coccoon: they are referring to the worm putting the silk on the coccoon. It makes sense...in Sigmanland.

Chan
to bother; wind around; wrap round; coil; involve; annoy; tangle

Si
Silk, thread, trace

The detailed description of the effort always refers to drawing the silk from the coccoon and onto a "reel."

So yes, "they" do "call it reeling silk" when they're speaking English, and their illustrations prove that they're not talking about the worm, you silk producing fellow.

WTF? I already said they call it "chansi" = "silk reeling". But it's not about actually reeling silk. I gave you the discussion/explanation from Chen Xiaowang (and I said that's where I got it, in addition to other sources) and you continue to fight, fight, fight. Do it your way, since you already know everything.

BTW, the "BaDuanJin", the one everyone calles "Eight Pieces of Brocade" isn't about crochetting, either, as it would seem using your logic. But I'm sure you'd argue it to a fare-thee-well, assuming, as usual, that if you don't know it, know one else could possibly know it, so any guess is a good one. This is completely amateurish. Go back to learning Aikido from your kid.

Well, yes, it is chansi, but in English they have consistently called it "reeling silk," including Chen Xiao Wang, and all the explanations have been that it is "like" drawing the silk from a coccoon, but you have been trying to turn it around backward and portray it as the motion of the worm secreting silk to make the coccoon. Why do you need to do that? You would rather obscure the real meaning than admit that everything I've said about it has been factually correct. The whole thing is that you don't want to admit that the movement did develop from silk workers in China and that it was refined into a martial method. That's your problem.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

I gave you the discussion/explanation from Chen Xiaowang (and I said that's where I got it, in addition to other sources) and you continue to fight, fight, fight.

No, you didn't give the discussion/explanation from CXW. You mentioned his name in passing and said that the movement doesn't come from the occupation of reeling silk. But everything I've seen from CXW includes the standard illustrations of pulling the silk from the coccoon: too fast and it breaks, too slow and it tangles. Does that sound like a worm applying the silk or like a worker reeling the silk?

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

Do it your way, since you already know everything.

I'm just going by the research and you are the only one who tries to portray it as the actions of the worm, which is really appropriate.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

BTW, the "BaDuanJin", the one everyone calles "Eight Pieces of Brocade" isn't about crochetting, either, as it would seem using your logic. But I'm sure you'd argue it to a fare-thee-well, assuming, as usual, that if you don't know it, know one else could possibly know it, so any guess is a good one. This is completely amateurish.

What's amateurish is your attempt to worm out of accepting the truth. Assuming is something you're especially good at. I haven't guessed at anything so far in the discussion. I've used only long-accepted Chinese sources against your own twisting fabrications.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

The whole thing is that you don't want to admit that the movement did develop from silk workers in China and that it was refined into a martial method. That's your problem.

Source? It's a freakin' metaphor, for chrissake. You don't even have a remote clue how to do reeling-silk exercises or what reeling-silk jin is and you'll devote post after post to insisting some superficial blurb you read in a book by some wants-to-appear-knowledgeable writer is credible. Give us the source's name and let's compare him/her's credentials to Chen Xiao Wang's.

Quote:

No, you didn't give the discussion/explanation from CXW.

Go back and look.

Quote:

But everything I've seen from CXW includes the standard illustrations of pulling the silk from the coccoon: too fast and it breaks, too slow and it tangles.

Source? I've never seen anything from Chen Xiao Wang himself showing those kinds of standard illustrations and I tend to read everything he and a number of others put out.

Quote:

I'm just going by the research and you are the only one who tries to portray it as the actions of the worm, which is really appropriate.

This is insanity. You'll argue any topic, even one you've blatantly been shown not to have even superficial knowledge about, to the bitter end.

And incidentally, the "don't break the thread strand" stuff is one "common consumption" explanation that is seen, but there are indications it's an after-the-fact reaction to the metaphor and that it may wrongly focus on the "silk". "Silk" is an old and well-known martial reference to the fascia, as well, and "fascia winding exercises" is a very accurate way of describing what's going on.

If you want to check out the swordfest 2007 demos in Alexandria this weeked (http://capitalareabudokai.org/swordfest.html demos of eastern and western sword styles, chinese, german, italian, japanese etc), I will be there and if you have 10 minutes to spare I can hopefully answer the above question for you.

Well, shoot. I'd come down and say Hi again, but that saturday is booked with a family thing. And as I've been told, priorities are: Work, Family, Budo. Er, wait, maybe that's Family, Work, Budo. LOL!

Source? It's a freakin' metaphor, for chrissake. You don't even have a remote clue how to do reeling-silk exercises or what reeling-silk jin is and you'll devote post after post to insisting some superficial blurb you read in a book by some wants-to-appear-knowledgeable writer is credible. Give us the source's name and let's compare him/her's credentials to Chen Xiao Wang's.

Adam Hsu was the first writer I read who mentioned it. And I've never seen anything that substantially contradicts him. Even Chen's material all says "silk reeling" that I've seen. Show me something different. Otherwise...you...are....just....asserting

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

I've never seen anything from Chen Xiao Wang himself showing those kinds of standard illustrations and I tend to read everything he and a number of others put out.

Then you should easily be able to quote and link to the quote where CXW says anything different...shouldn't you? You demand it from everyone else.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

[This is insanity. You'll argue any topic, even one you've blatantly been shown not to have even superficial knowledge about, to the bitter end.

You are the one who has reversed yourself on this topic, not I. And my main point is that it's not part of JMA. You've never shown that it is though you've tried to substitute other things and you've done your best to distort the translation....

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

[And incidentally, the "don't break the thread strand" stuff is one "common consumption" explanation that is seen, but there are indications it's an after-the-fact reaction to the metaphor and that it may wrongly focus on the "silk".

Let's see..."there are indications...." that's a powerful citation of source. And the source of those "indications" is....Mike's opinion???? We've seen how you skim over material, pick out a word you think you understand and build a whole schematic from that. And you've proven that you will distort concepts to keep from appearing incorrect about something...So I don't see any reason to take your protestations too seriously.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

"Silk" is an old and well-known martial reference to the fascia, as well, and "fascia winding exercises" is a very accurate way of describing what's going on.

Could be conceivable...but what's still fishy is the outward resemblance to the actual work of reeling silk, the fact that these concepts arose in a silk manufacturing culture and the rest, and your continuing insistence that there is no relation between the two--that in fact, it refers to the worm making the silk.

You really should join some sort of clinical trial, but I don't think there is one for your very unusual condition.

Good luck with all that.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 07-11-2007 at 12:55 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Adam Hsu was the first writer I read who mentioned it. And I've never seen anything that substantially contradicts him.

Great, you quote a Taiwanese Baji guy for a source.

Quote:

You are the one who has reversed yourself on this topic, not I. And my main point is that it's not part of JMA. You've never shown that it is though you've tried to substitute other things and you've done your best to distort the translation....

You know, there's going to come a time when you'll wish some of your comments had been expunged from the archives. The basics are the same. You don't know the basics; you don't know of any substantive differences between Chinese and Japanese martial arts. You're reduced to telling "Mochizuki tole me..." anecdotes.

David
Not to get in the middle of you and Mike's love fest.....
Your not going to get it from trying to copy some motion of fishermen or silk drawing in a river of even in the Taiji exercise. The motion without mentally moving and connecting things is pointless -other than getting some mild exercise. What is connecting and moving is not in "winding your muscles" while pulling on something. In fact were you to do that for five years and I put some load on you- chances are you'd fall apart even quicker than a good judo player. Done right and you'd give anyone who wants to throw you a real hard time. The winding isn't some "body shape" you take, in motion.
When it comes to this topic, don't hate the message because of the messenger. Try to look at it instead with a joy of learning something new. There's nothing wrong with not knowing a thing or two, right? Even when we learn things by rote, there is always a definable mark of individual accumen. Look forward to breaking new ground and gaining power for yourself in your old age...Hah!

Hmmmm.... well, I'm not the one waiting anxiously to meet up with Daving and talking about hugging and making friends, Dan. In fact, somehow I don't think that was the traditional approach to martial arts at all!!!!

Not to get in the middle of you and Mike's love fest.....Your not going to get it from trying to copy some motion of fishermen or silk drawing in a river of even in the Taiji exercise. The motion without mentally moving and connecting things is pointless -other than getting some mild exercise.

I think it's like everything else: there's a source, an inspiration, and then there's development. I don't have the slightest illusion that the surface movement is the inner depth. The problem for me is Mike's changing stories--throw the insult, then, when the proof emerges, disparage it and throw another insult--and all really unnecessary because we did get back to the likelihood that the movement was originally derived from laborers, then refined. So I know that silk reeling is internal and very subtle. Mike just isn't.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

What is connecting and moving is not in "winding your muscles" while pulling on something.

Those comments all relate to Mike's "crude" illustration of what he meant by "pulling" silk as opposed to "reeling" silk--which was just some obfuscation to cover his being caught in a weak spot.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

The winding isn't some "body shape" you take, in motion.

From looking at the videos, it's obvious that it's not just external movement and that that form of movement is very important in tai chi. I have no argument against that.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

When it comes to this topic, don't hate the message because of the messenger.

Not at all. Most of the past several comments have just been chastening the messenger for muddying up the message--and apparently intentionally.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Try to look at it instead with a joy of learning something new. There's nothing wrong with not knowing a thing or two, right? Even when we learn things by rote, there is always a definable mark of individual accumen. Look forward to breaking new ground and gaining power for yourself in your old age...Hah!

I'm with you there. I've gotten a lot to think about in the last several days. I'm setting up a "nine-palace" post formation in my back yard to work with.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

Hmmmm.... well, I'm not the one waiting anxiously to meet up with Daving and talking about hugging and making friends, Dan. In fact, somehow I don't think that was the traditional approach to martial arts at all!!!!

Mike

Well, I can understand your approach and your humor in doggin me whenever I say it- as if its something anathema to Budo. I've met plenty of capable guys who have no trouble being nice- till its time to play, and I've met a few others who were very capable and were perfect asses. There really isn't any distinction either way that I've seen. Its simply a choice.
Like the story Ellis likes to tell of O'Sullivan, who was verbally accosted on a train. He was nice and magnanimous to the twerp giving him a hard time. A reporter said something like "You're Champion of the world you don't have to be nice. O' sullivan said. "I -AM- champion of the world. I can afford to be nice."
Again, its just a view. It doesn't validate anyone's training either way.

Well, I can understand your approach and your humor in doggin me whenever I say it- as if its something anathema to Budo.

Well, given the penchant of some people to worry about "koryu" tradition and secrets, in relation to other people and not being "open" because it was traditional to be reserved until you knew someone, etc., it's just a minor point of inconsistency (nothing at all to do with anathema). Hence, it's worth a mild, humorous remark. I'm sure a friendly guy like you sees the humor.

Could be conceivable...but what's still fishy is the outward resemblance to the actual work of reeling silk, the fact that these concepts arose in a silk manufacturing culture and the rest, and your continuing insistence that there is no relation between the two--that in fact, it refers to the worm making the silk.

David, the thing is... Mike's explanations make sense, for someone that has these skills.
Sure he might be postulating, but having silk reeling refer to the worms actual movements to produce silk make sense, as well as the reference to not pulling silk too hard etc etc.

Asians love to make metaphores. The japanese and chinese are especially guilty of it, even if the metaphore used didn't have any direct relation to the actual skill.
The reeling silk metaphore certainly fits the bill and stinks more of someone simply coming up with a multi layered metaphore

Ark loves to make all sorts of raunchy metaphores when it comes to describing some of the skills.
Does that mean that the skills were created while doing it d%#$y??

Maybe 1000 years down the line if "Ark's style" is still popluar, somebody that's on the same wave length as you might say how the skill was deriven from long nights in the red light district...

Another thing, the pulling silk vs reeling silk makes perfect sense as well. (Mainly becaus up until now I've been more of the "pulling silk" variety..which is slowly changing)
In one way it goes back to the Shaolin styl3 vs. 6 harmonies/reeling style.
Its not one is better than the other, but rather which approach is more suited to that person.

PS
Adam Hsu is a ...bad... bad example to bring up.
I mean, he's ..."ok" as far as Baji goes, but I wouldn't quote him as an expert. He's a good salesman as far as CMA goes, but even in Japan he doesn't have a very high reputation as being skilled.

having silk reeling refer to the worms actual movements to produce silk make sense, as well as the reference to not pulling silk too hard etc etc.

I think it's easy to get lost in generalities. For instance, "Misogi" is not just about "cleansing" by any means and "breathing exercises" are not just about breathing. General terms don't necessarily connote the full implications of what is going on, in many descriptions. When someone says "reeling silk", the uniformed picture some sort of arm/hand movement, etc., and actually you can do reeling-silk exercises separately for the head, neck, arms, torso, waist, hips, knees, ankles, or whatever. It's the way the power is used that defines the "reeling silk", not the particular movement of any body part.

I posted several times in the past that for all practical purposes, the equivalent to "silk reeling exercises"in Aikido was in the Aiki Taiso. Now most Aiki Taiso don't have silk reeling, but I've never been able to say that with complete certainty in some of the old films of O-Sensei.... there are a couple of videos where I had to go "maybe-maybe not" because I just couldn't tell for sure what he did to get to some of the places he got in his movements. Tohei I would say no... he uses only the pulling silk, although I don't think he really teaches what he knows about this area (just an opinion, not a judgement).

Ultimately, at the level we're discussing these things, it simply doesn't matter much. My point is that if you boil down correct Aikido and you boil down correct Taiji (or other arts, Chinese or Japanes), after everything boils off, you'll have the same principles left in the bottom of the pan.

I posted several times in the past that for all practical purposes, the equivalent to "silk reeling exercises"in Aikido was in the Aiki Taiso. Now most Aiki Taiso don't have silk reeling, but I've never been able to say that with complete certainty in some of the old films of O-Sensei.... there are a couple of videos where I had to go "maybe-maybe not" because I just couldn't tell for sure what he did to get to some of the places he got in his movements. Tohei I would say no... he uses only the pulling silk, although I don't think he really teaches what he knows about this area (just an opinion, not a judgement).

FWIW

Mike

Hmmm ... speaking of Aiki Taiso. So, you're saying that exercises like Udefuri, Funakogi, and shomenuchi should all be done with silk reeling?

For those who want to see vids of two of the above (but please don't read the descriptions):